Key result
Heart failure patients with previous right ventricular pacing showed a greater increase in ejection fraction after cardiac resynchronization therapy than unpaced patients (12.8% vs 7.4%, P=0.007).
Why the study?
Does cardiac resynchronization therapy improve echocardiographic parameters more in heart failure patients with previous right ventricular pacing compared to those without?
Cohort (n=80)
Does cardiac resynchronization therapy improve echocardiographic parameters more in heart failure patients with previous right ventricular pacing compared to those without?
Absolute Event Rate: 12.8% vs 7.4%
p-value: p=0.007
Heart failure patients with previous right ventricular pacing have smaller ventricles and greater dyssynchrony, but show a better echocardiographic response to CRT compared to those without prior RV pacing.
May support prioritizing CRT evaluation in RV-paced HF patients; extends observational data but leaves open randomized outcome confirmation.
AIMS: Right ventricular (RV) pacing is an iatrogenic cause of heart failure (HF) that has not been well studied. We assessed whether HF patients paced from the right ventricle (RVp) adversely remodel and respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in a similar way to HF patients without right ventricular pacing (nRVp). METHODS AND RESULTS: Echocardiograms were performed before and ∼5 months after CRT in 31 RVp and 49 nRVp HF patients. Longitudinal intraventricular dyssynchrony using tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) was calculated as the standard deviation of time to peak systolic displacement by tissue tracking (SD-TT) of 12 segments. Longitudinal dyssynchrony within a wall (intramural dyssynchrony) was assessed by two methods: quantifying the number of segments with initial abnormal apical displacement (IMD score) and using a cross-correlation synchrony index (CCSI). Despite similar ejection fractions (EFs) of 28% prior to CRT, left ventricular end-diastolic volume was significantly smaller (143±54 vs. 183±62, P=0.004) in RVp. The standard deviation of time to peak systolic displacement by tissue tracking (83.4±34.9 vs. 67.9±26.6, P=0.03) and IMD score (3.1±1.8 vs. 1.3±1.7, P<0.001) were greater in RVp. Cardiac resynchronization therapy significantly improved EF and volumes in both groups. Ejection fraction increased more in RVp (12.8±9.2% vs. 7.4±7.6%, P=0.007). Intraventricular dyssynchrony and both measures of intramural septal dyssynchrony improved to a greater extent post-CRT in RVp. CONCLUSION: Right ventricular pacing patients differ from nRVp HF patients in that they have smaller ventricles and greater intraventricular and intramural septal dyssynchrony. Right ventricular pacing HF patients respond better to CRT with greater improvements in EF, and intraventricular and intramural septal dyssynchrony.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bank et al. (2010) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=80). Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with previous right ventricular pacing vs. CRT in patients without previous right ventricular pacing was evaluated on Change in ejection fraction (p=0.007). Heart failure patients with previous right ventricular pacing showed a greater increase in ejection fraction after cardiac resynchronization therapy than unpaced patients (12.8% vs 7.4%, P=0.007).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: